A Mystagogical View to withness in Enterprise Education

Dr. Deema Refai

Senior Lecturer in Entrepreneurship, Department of Management, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield, UK, HD1 3DH, tel.: +44 (0) 1484 472958, email: d.refai@hud.ac.uk

Dr. David Higgins

Lecturer in Management (DBA), Organisation and Management, University of Liverpool, Chatham Building, Chatham Street, Liverpool, UK, L69 7ZH, tel.: +44 (0)151 795 8328 ext. 8328, email: David.Higgins@liverpool.ac.uk

Abstract:

This paper provides a philosophical conceptualisation of how learners engage in entrepreneurial learning from within by focusing on the role of the inner identity and mission of the learner. Klapper and Neergaard (2012) add withness to the learning frameworks of EE, but there is hardly any literature discussing the implications of learning from within in this context. Fayolle (2013) calls for investigating how learners learn in order to address the vast differences among audiences in EE, and understand the rationale behind effective didactical design. This paper adopts a postmodernist perspective to understand the role of self in EE, and draws on the Learning Onion Model for learning from within (Korthagen et al., 2013). A mystagogical perspective is proposed to help learners engage with their inner missions and identities, and improve their core reflection skills, thus, highlighting and inspirational dimension to EE.

Keywords: enterprise education, entrepreneurial learning, learning from within, mystagogy.

Introduction

The significance of entrepreneurial education has now gained universal acceptance in terms of its value to business growth and economic prosperity, educators and policy makers view the development of entrepreneurial intentions and skills as the central driving force of future economic strength. However, as university student populations grow, the demands on entrepreneurial scholars, researchers and students alike to find new forms of engagement, which create action and applied experience within the entrepreneurial student body, requires significant consideration in terms of pedagogical practice (Biggs and Tang, 2007). Some serious questions have been raised on the current methods of entrepreneurial development and education, and what the most appropriate approaches to develop and educate this community should be. One particular concern relates to Hindle (2007), who refers to entrepreneurial development and education as a field of study that lacks legitimacy as a source of true value.

At present, scholars and researchers in the field are currently challenging one another to question what the most effective approach to educating the entrepreneur is. This requires more focus on innovative methods that facilitate experiential learning practices (Cope, 2005; Hamilton, 2005; Pittaway and Cope, 2007; Hamilton, 2011), particularly considering that much of the entrepreneur learning is experiential in nature (Cope, 2005; Sarasvathy, 2001; Sullivan, 2000). This need for experiential learning practices, which resonate with the view of being an entrepreneur, must now become the central focus of how educators engage with the student body.

In this paper, we seek to explore the questions of how learners engage in the learning process in EE, and what role the inner need of learners play, where such understanding is likely to impact educators choices in the development of more effective didactical designs. Focusing on learning from within, by building on the learning onion model (Dilts, 1990; Korthagen, 2004), this paper is proposed to both inform and challenge the audience. The paper relates the main layers of the learning onion model to perspectives of philosophical approaches to learning, including Pedagogy, Andragogy (Knowles, 1970), Heutagogy (Hase and Kenyon, 2000) and Mystagogy, where the latter is proposed in this paper as a new philosophical perspective to highlight the significance of the inner core qualities of learners in EE.

Enterprise education

Enterprise education (EE) is defined as the processes or series of activities that aim to enable an individual to assimilate and develop the knowledge, skills, and values required to become enterprising (Broad, 2006, p.5). Similarly, the QAA defines entrepreneurship education as the process of equipping ...students with the additional knowledge, attributes and capabilities required to apply abilities in the context of setting up a new venture or business. Both definitions, of enterprise and entrepreneurship education (EE), are relevant to our discussion in this paper, which explores how learners engage in the learning process and develop various enterprise and entrepreneurial skills, whereby they become more enterprising and more entrepreneurial, respectively.

Traditionally, the concept of entrepreneurship has been taught in business schools to business studies students with a focus towards the functional aspect of creating the business plan, drawing up the forecasted accounts, and, ultimately, how the business idea would be marketed. This, however, is in contrast to the view that entrepreneurship is about creativity; being innovative in ones thinking and practise. There exists a strong belief that entrepreneurship is most suitably taught and delivered outside business schools, simply because of the narrow context which they have to offer in comparison to the broader context of what one considers to entrepreneurship. However, the impact upon how HEIs are currently delivering entrepreneurial programmes is influencing entrepreneurial growth and coming under increasing pressure, especially when government sectors are having to report on the investment in policies and expenditure to support such incentives (Thorpe et al., 2009). There exists a need for HEI to both recognise and develop a more focused pedagogy towards EE in order to respond to current criticism by shifting attention away from the traditional means of delivery towards facilitating learning through alternative methods (Zhang and Hamilton, 2010). As such, this calls for a broader scope in terms of how, and to whom, entrepreneurship is taught, and the value it aims to achieve in terms of helping students realise and engage with the needs of both; themselves and the contexts in which they are acting.

The subject of how entrepreneurs learn has developed a considerable body of literature in recent years. In particular, focus has been placed on the role that education plays within entrepreneurship and, in particular, the suitability, relevance and effectiveness of passive and experiential learning strategies that are employed. This focus has given rise to the debate surrounding the question of whether entrepreneurs find greater effectiveness from learning through strategies of action and reflection, or whether the traditional and more passive methods of education remain the only sources of learning. Learning in the context of the entrepreneur has been described in terms of the varying skills that are required in order to effectively draw in new information and attribute meaning and context. This suggests that the creation of knowledge involves both procedural and contextual elements; procedural knowledge involves the process of knowing how to take data and develop this into information, while contextual knowledge bears attention to the environmental domains and awareness of the entrepreneur, of their influence on the environment and the issues that arise from it.

So far, the main growth in EE research has been particularly with regard to its contents and methods. For example, several authors have investigated EE through reflection (e.g. Cope, 2003; Daudelin, 1996), learning by doing, collaborative approaches and experiential learning (e.g. Cope and Watts, 2000; Pittaway and Cope, 2006; Rae, 2003), and learning from failure (e.g. Cope, 2011; Neergard et al., 2014). Furthermore, there has been great interest in business plans as means to support the functional knowledge of new business starters (Honig, 2004). Yet, this focus on the content and methods of EE has disregarded, at many instances, the needs of the learners, who are regarded as the central players in the learning process (Blenker et al., 2006). Fayolle (2013) propose a generic teaching model that aims to present what is known and what needs to be known in entrepreneurship education by addressing the questions of why? What? How? For whom? And for which results? In his discussion, Fayolle (2013) highlights the need for a better understanding of the vast differences among learners in EE, where such understanding could significantly improve educators philosophical posture and role in the field.

Korthagen (2008) also highlights the need to focus on the inner personal needs of students, which are key to their personal growth, but, yet, are often inadequately attended to in professional development. Furthermore, building on Wengers (2009) social theory of learning, Klapper and Refai (2015) developed a multi-perspective Gestalt view of learning model, where a more holistic perspective to learning that considers the learner, the educator and their context was adopted. Among the different dimensions addressed in their model, Klapper and Refai (2015) highlight the need to address the dimension of learning as becoming, which relates to the identity of the learner by addressing questions of who the learner is, why they learn and when. Addressing such issues calls upon the entrepreneurial scholarly community to be experimental and inventive in the creation of new learning spaces. In this paper, the authors explore how learners engage in the learning process in EE through emphasising the significant role of learners inner needs. We highlight the need for appreciating and reflecting on collective practices in EE (Jones and Matlay, 2011), but also contend that students need to go beyond reflection on collective practices to learn from within through core reflection on their core qualities, needs and inspirations.

Learning from within

Learning from within explores the meaning of bringing out the potential in people, it is about connecting human hearts and spirits with how we see ourselves, and others in our daily practice ... Envisioning the expansion of our capacities and potential through strengthening that connection (Greene et al., 2013:4). Unlike experiential and reflective learning, which focus on learning by doing, through reflecting on experiences and interactions with others, learning from within is essentially based on the concept of core reflection, which focuses on peoples strengths as a platform for their development, while focusing on the significant role of authenticity for the personal growth of the whole person (Greene et al., 2013). Furthermore, it has been argued that common reflection strategies applied in experiential learning, as opposed to core reflection strategies applied in learning from within, do not significantly impact future actions, and, thus, are not regarded as sufficient to support professional development (Hoekstra, 2007; Manvelder-Longayroux et al., 2007).

The notion of emphasising authenticity of learners adopted in learning from within goes in line with the postmodernist school of thought. This school of thought emerged in the 1950s to oppose cultural modernism, but, yet, gained wider recognition in the 1980s to include other practices. Postmodernism came as a critiques to the Enlightenment theory of knowledge, where the latter supports the Cartasian school of thought (Foucault, 1988). The Enlightment theory argues for a universal truth and the idea of a unitary end of history and of a subject (PC, Answering the Question: What is Postmodernism? p. 73). Postmodernism, however, supports the notions of rationality, universalism and materialism, thus, attacking stability of the self and value (Waugh, 1998). Postmodernism supports plurality of the self, which is essentially seen as a result of plurality of reality (Firat et al., 1997). Therefore, this postmodernist approach is deemed conducive to our discussion on learning from within, particularly that we aim to address the existing gap of overlooking the vast differences among audiences in EE through highlighting the role of withness..

Dilts (1990) and Korthagen (2004) agree that learning from within happens in a multi-level learning process. For that, they propose the learning Onion Model, which places the inner core of a person in the centre. The onion model, shown in Figure 1, comprises six main components including the environment, behaviour, competencies, beliefs, identity and mission. As shown in Figure 1, the environment involves all elements that students encounter outside their own selves; e.g. tutors, colleagues, classrooms and the culture of the institution. The behaviour involves the acts that students do in order to cope with their environmental challenges; e.g. preparing business plans. Competencies are what students are competent at, which might be, for example, competency in their preparation of business plans. Korthagen (2013) contends that these three layers of the environment, behaviour and competencies are not enough, by themselves, to promote learning from within as learning can be inhibited by consequent learning levels. Beliefs refer to often unconscious assumptions that students have about the external world, which are essential as they become a self-fulfilling prophecy (Korthagen, 2013:32); e.g. believing that it is very hard to have a good business plan. The assumptions that students have about themselves are, however, reflected in the identity layer, which resemble the students self-concepts; e.g. when a person believes that he/she cannot prepare a good business plan. The final core level is the mission, which reflects sources of inspiration that add value and meaning to students work and initiatives. The religious sense of individuals can play a major role in adding meaning to the mission layer (Korthagen, 2013); e.g. a mission to be a better person or making the world a better place. Korthagen (2013) refers to reflection on inner layers of learning as core reflection, and highlights the importance of alignment between the layers in order for learning to flow smoothly and take place.

Figure 1: The Learning Onion Model

Discussing the learning frameworks in EE in relation to perspectives of philosophical approaches to learning

Three general frameworks for learning in EE exist including education about, for and into enterprise (Gibb, 1999). A fourth framework was later introduced by Klapper and Neergaard (2012), which includes the withness thinking dimension (Shotter, 2006). Three general methods for EE are also proposed by Gibson et al. (2009), which vary in their extent and objectives of developing enterprise skills. These methods include lectures, the actual running of a new venture during undertaking entrepreneurial learning and experiential or reflective learning. These three teaching methods align with the three learning approaches for the development of enterprise skills described by Guirdham and Tyler (1992), including cognitive, behaviourist and experiential learning, respectively. In this section, the learning frameworks in EE will be discussed in relation to perspectives of philosophical approaches to learning, namely pedagogy, andragogy (Knowles, 1970), heutagogy (Hase and Kenyon, 2000) and mystagogy.

As shown in Figure 2, the three general frameworks for learning in EE (about, for and into), align with the three general methods for EE (lectures, actual running of a business and experiential/reflective learning), and also with the three learning approaches for the development of enterprise skills (cognitive, behaviourist and experiential). Lectures, the first method of teaching in EE proposed by Gibson et al. (2009), are clearly related to cognitive learning, which focuses on active processing of information and giving it meaning and relevance according to perceptual processes, mainly introduced through rehearsal. Lecturing is highlighted in the Survey of Entrepreneurship in HEIs in Europe (2008) as the most commonly used teaching method in EE in HEIs. It can be argued that this type of cognitive learning is associated with learning about enterprise, which mainly comprises a theoretical approach to develop students awareness of the concepts of enterprise and entrepreneurship, while not significantly contributing to improving their creativity or ability to act strategically in changing environments (Kirby, 2002). Education for enterprise is related to the second method of teaching proposed by Gibson et al. (2009), which involves the actual running of new ventures. This aligns with behaviourist learning, where individuals learn to associate certain behaviours with certain stimuli, and is emphasised though repetition and reinforcement (Guirdham and Tyler, 1992). The third method of teaching identified by Gibson et al. (2009) through experiential or reflective learning, also referred to as involvement learning, basically means learning from experiences including testing new ideas, analysing findings, resolving problems, reflecting on experiences, giving feedback and others. Therefore, experiential learning is related to education into enterprise, which is based on student-centred learning approaches that involve common reflection techniques as central to the learning process.

Figure 2: Learning frameworks in EE in relation to perspectives of philosophical approaches to learning

Figure 2 also points out the perspectives of philosophical approaches to learning, including pedagogy, andragogy and heutagogy, with regard to the three frameworks of EE. Due to the dominating cognitive approach applied in learning about enterprise, the latter has been described to fall under pedagogical approaches by Jones et al. (2014). Yet, according to McAuliffe and Winter (2013), andragogy is similar to pedagogy in terms that learning is controlled by an educator who decides what is taught, when and how. However, unlike pedagogy, andragogy is usually used in relation to adults learning who engage in the learning process as they are regarded as being more motivated and self-directed learners. Therefore, despite having connections with pedagogical approaches, education about enterprise is proposed here as an andragogical approach since adults engagement in the learning process in EE cannot be neglected. For similar reasons, andragogical approaches can, arguably, be related to education for enterprise, which aligns with Jones et al.s (2014) argument that education for enterprise encourages students active engagement, at cognitive and emotional levels, when assessing situations and opportunities, and, therefore, proposed it as an andragogical tool to EE.

While acknowledging educators role in guiding the learning process in education for enterprise, the student-centred approach to learning cannot be neglected here (Rae, 2003, Hytti and OGorman, 2004), which suggests the connection between education for enterprise and heutagogical approaches. Heutagogy emphasises students being self-driven in learning how to learn; i.e. independent of formal learning (Parslow, 2010), and is defined as an approach that recognises the need to be flexible in the learning where the teacher provides resources but the learner designs the actual course he or she might take by negotiating the learning (Hase and Kenyon, 2000:online). Therefore, more student involvement in EE is pointed out in Figure 2 moving on from pedagogy to andragogy and then heutagogy as learning shifts from learning about to for to into enterprise.

Based on this, heutagogy is shown in Figure 2 as a philosophical approach to learning that also relates to education into enterprise. Reflexivity and reflectivity have been well established under learning into enterprise, whereby more creative and innovative learning approaches have been argued as experiential learning, opportunity-centred learning, work-based learning and others. Consequently, the authors agree with Jones et al.s (2014) proposition that education into enterprise aligns with a heutagogical approach to learning (Hase and Kenyon, 2000) as it sees the learner as independent and capable of self-directing the learning process through communication with other people and learning resources (Luckin et al., 2010).

Now that perspectives to philosophical approaches to learning related to education about, for and into enterprise have been discussed, it becomes appropriate to highlight the lack of research investigating the methods, learning approaches and philosophical perspectives related to withness, the fourth framework to EE (Klapper and Neergaard, 2012). In this paper, the authors propose mystagogy as a perspective to the philosophical learning approach in withness learning as highlighted in Figure 2. Alongside the withness framework, the authors also propose core reflection as a general method to EE, and core reflective techniques as learning approaches for developing enterprise skills as shown in Figure 2.

A mystagogical approach to EE

Mystagogy word comes from the Greek root of agogy, and is defined as a process of leading (or training) into the mystery... initiation into that which is not yet fully revealed (Wagner, 2014), and as a person or thing that leads or incites to action (Collins English Dictionary, 1991). This term is mostly used in Catholic and Orthodox Christian religious contexts as the term was first introduced to reflect a mystagogue, someone who guides people into temple secrets.

This concept of mystagogy was deemed relevant to EE as the latter is centrally based on unleashing inner talents, and driving students to excel and act as change agents (Kirby, 2002:511). Furthermore, definitions of entrepreneurs and enterprising people highlight those peoples abilities to perceive opportunities and accordingly undertake experiences for which the results might not be fully revealed, as in Bolton and Thompsons (2000) definition of an entrepreneur as a person who habitually creates and innovates to build something of recognised value around perceived opportunities (p.5). The Davies Report (2002), which evaluates 17 schools providing EE at various levels, also proposes a definition of enterprise skills that highlights the uncertainty and risk taking elements embedded in enterprise the ability to handle uncertainty and respond positively to change, to create and implement new ideas and new ways of doing things, to make reasonable risk/reward assessments and act upon them in ones personal and working life (Davies, 2002, p.17).

To apply a mystagogical approach in EE, we agree with Klapper and Refai (2015) about the interconnectedness between the who? of the educator and that of the learner in EE. A view that is also supported by Greene et al. (2013) who contend that the growing interest in content and pedagogies is not sufficient, by itself, to engage students in deep learning. Rather, Greene et al. (2013) see that in order for students to engage in deep learning, educators, themselves, should also engage with their own inner needs through connecting with their passion for teaching and their inner qualities (Korthagen, 2004), acknowledge what is purposeful and meaningful to them (Intrator & Kunzman, 2006), while also connecting with their own authenticity (Palmer, 1998). This engagement is essential in order for students to reach the basic concept upon which learning from within is based, and that is core reflection.

Core reflection is proposed in Figure 2 as a general method of EE in relation to the withness framework. Core reflection focuses on peoples strengths as a platform for their development, while emphasising the significant role of authenticity for the personal growth of the whole person (Greene et al., 2013). By whole person, Greene et al. (2013) refers to integrating all inner dimensions, including thoughts, feelings, desires and ideals in order to nurture the full power of that wholeness. This notion of wholeness, therefore, possibly supports the significance of aligning personal dimensions with professional practice of both educators and learners. For that, Figure 2 proposes core reflective techniques as learning approaches for developing enterprise skills through withness. Meditation and yoga, for instance, can be proposed as effective approaches here, particularly that literature argues the value of these approaches in understanding ones self and bringing more midndfulness into daily activities (e.g. Balog et al., 2014; Herriott et al., 2009).

Discussing the philosophical perspectives of the learning frameworks in EE in relation to the learning onion model

This section relates the philosophical perspectives of the learning frameworks in EE (including pedagogy, andragogy, heutagogy and mystagogy) to the learning onion model and learning from within. In the previous discussion, the frameworks of learning in EE have been related to philosophical approaches moving on from pedagogy to andragogy and then heutagogy as students involvement in the learning process increases from learning about to learning for and then learning into enterprise, respectively. Then, mystagogy is proposed to support the withness dimension of the learning frameworks in EE.

The first framework of learning about enterprise is discussed in relation to pedagogical and andragogical approaches. It can be argued that the value of the learning onion model, which supports learning from within, is largely diminished when students are learning only about enterprise. This is due to the fact that this type of learning emphasises educators skills in shaping students learning into the same curriculum (Matlay, 2009), which makes education about enterprise subject to many criticisms, particularly as the need for students in EE to be reflective and reflexive is well established (Pepin, 2012).

Adnragogical and heutagogical approaches are discussed in relation to education for and into enterprise. In relation to the onion model, it can be argued that these andragogical and heutagogical approaches are connected to the environment, behaviour, competencies and beliefs layers of the Model. We argue that the environment layer of the onion model comprises andragogical approaches as it supports students engagement with tutors, colleagues, learning classrooms and cultures in such ways that involve internal and external aspects to the learner in the learning process, thereby supporting andragogical learning through interaction between students and these external elements. The behaviour, competencies and beliefs layers of the onion model, however, support heutagogical approaches as they support student-centred learning that allows students to engage in the learning process based on their personal behaviour, competencies and beliefs in relation to the external environment, thereby supporting a heutagogical approach to learning.

Yet, as argued by Korthagen (2013), it is not enough to consider the layers of the environment, behaviour, competencies and beliefs alone since the absence of triggers to inner levels of learning, will consequently inhibit the progress of learning through these outer layers. Therefore, while acknowledging the need for andragogical and heutagogical approaches in EE, the authors in this paper argue the need for a deeper approach that supports students in recognising their inner core qualities and sources of inspiration. The authors contend that such an approach is necessary to allow learning to flow, and, consequently, allow the learner to evolve, rather than trying to create a type of learner. For that, the authors propose the mystagogical approach in EE, which is discussed in relation to the withness framework, to go in line with the inner layers of identity and mission in the learning onion model. The identity and mission layers of the onion model reflect beliefs about the self and inspirational factors that drive learning from within, thereby allowing learners to connect with their inner core qualities. This is shown in Figure 3, which highlights the significance of a mystagogical approach in supporting learners to evolve in EE, thereby supporting the withness learning framework. This mystagogy approach is also shown in Figure 3 as essential for supporting heutagogical and andragogical approaches, that subsequently support learning into, for and about enterprise.

Figure 3: Allowing learners to evolve through a mystagogical approach to EE

The core qualities that a person gets in touch with during learning from within are strongly related to personal ideals (Korthagen, 2013), and support the notion that everyone has an inner diamond (Almaas, 1987) or psychological capital, which is a source of great potential. These core qualities are likely to be affected by leaners habitus (Bourdieu, 1986), which Bourdieu saw as a system of dispositions; i.e. thoughts and actions, which, consequently, shape who learners are and what they want. For that, Bourdieu (1996) saw the need for alignment between social structures and mental structures, between the objective divisions of the social world... and the principles of vision and division that agents apply to them (Bourdieu, 1996, quoted in Lizardo, 2004:376). Therefore, it is essential for educators to believe in this inner potential of their students and search for it in order to allow learning to happen smoothly and flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), where such flow happens when students engage in a comfortable experience when facing a challenge, and swift and organic learning takes place (Korthagen, 2008).

Based on this discussion, the authors propose a definition for a mystagogical approach to EE as an approach that allows students to nourish their learning by engaging with their inner self concepts and sources of inspiration. This engagement allows learners to reflect on what really adds value and meaning to their work and initiatives, and, consequently, allows them to effectively engage with their external environments, and recognise what they are capable of doing best.

This idea of unleashing core qualities through a mystagogical approach support the notion that each leaner is different, and that the social world is constructed by students who hold free will and who can, and will, behave in spontaneous ways not anticipated by the scientific methods. Learners are led by different mystagogies that lead their inspirational drives, and these are essentially relevant to their identity and mission. This goes in line with Schutz (1967) who argued that when faced with the problem of understanding social existence, consideration needs to be given to the motives, the means and ends, the shared relationships and the plans and expectations of human actors.

Conclusion

In this call for a mystagogical approach in EE, the authors do not undermine the value of andargogical and heutagogical approaches, which are necessary for students to interact with their contexts and socially construct their knowledge. Yet, we agree with Polanyi (1962) that knowledge is both held by the individual and socially constructed, thus, viewing personal knowledge as something that is not entirely subjective and, yet, not fully objective. Consequently, we acknowledge the value of andragogical and heutagogical approaches, but also emphasise a mystagogical approach that considers the inner identity and mission of students. This, goes in line with Tsoukas (1996) who saw that the knowledge embodied in an agent emerges from the interaction between the agents tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge it is inter-subjective- and is inherently unpredictable and continually evolving. While acknowledging this, we argue that without a mystagogical approach that triggers learners inner identity and mission layers, other layers of learning are unlikely to be triggered and flow in the learning experience cannot be achieved.

Highlighting this need for a mystagogical approach in EE emphasises the focus on the learner, and acknowledges the vast differences among the audiences. Having said that, the authors support the notion that EE cannot, and should not, be presented as a standalone business subject. This is due to our argument that learning in EE evolves from the inner beliefs and needs of individuals, and, therefore, cannot be restricted within the boundaries of a curriculum, a view also supported by Jones et al. (2014). Acknowledging the mystagogical approach also goes beyond that to harness the value of these differences among learners in ways that allow each of them to grow and evolve in his/her own unique manner, which aligns with their inner beliefs and inspirations.

The mystagogical approach to EE proposed in this paper can help us understand more clearly why one entrepreneurship student, or even entrepreneur, can perform better than another, and why the benefits of EE are not identical across the audience; questions that have been raised by Fayolle (2013). We argue that the more the enterprise learner is supported to nourish his/her inner mission and identity, the more their learning will flourish. This goes in line with the viewpoint of Markwell (2006) that mystagogy must be an individualised process that permits different students to progress at different rates (p. 324). So far, this issue has been addressed from the perspectives of the various and multiple forms of experiential learning applied in EE, and the multiple contextual factors impacting the EE process (e.g. Jones, 2011; Refai, Klapper and Thompson, 2015). Yet, so far, these perspectives have overlooked the impact of the various inner core qualities of learners that inspire them and drive their learning. Thus, we support the notion that there is no best unanimous way to teach EE, and agree with Jones et al. (2014) that it is the philosophical basis that makes EE distinct from others. We propose that scholarship in EE rests in inspirational learning that aligns with the inner identities and missions of students, without which other levels of learning cannot be triggered.

References

Almaas, A.H. (1986). Essence: The diamond approach to inner realisation. York Beach, ME: Samuel Weiser.

Balog, A.M., Baker L.T. and Walker, A.G. (2014),Religiosity and spirituality in entrepreneurship: a review and research agenda, Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 159-186.

Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2007),Teaching for Quality Learning at University.(3rd edn) Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.

Blenker, P., Dreisler, P., Faergeman, H.M. and Kjeldsen, J. (2006), Learning and teaching entrepreneurship: dilemmas, reflections and strategies, in Fayolle, A. and Klandt, H. (Eds) International Entrepreneurship Education, Edward Elgar Publishing, Aldershot, pp. 21-34.

Bolton W.K. and Thompson J.L. (2000), Entrepreneurs: Talent, Temperament, Technique, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.

Bourdieu, P. (1986), The forms of capital, In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, pp.241-258. New York, Greenwood. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/bourdieu-forms-capital.htm (accessed 28 July 2013).

Bourdieu, P. (1996), The State Nobility, Stanford University Press.

Broad, J. (2006), Enterprising Skills: A Literature Review, White Rose Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) Enterprise Research Report, coordinated by The University of Sheffield.

Cope, J. (2003), Entrepreneurial learning and critical reflection: discontinuous events as triggers for higher-level learning, Management Learning, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 429-450.

Cope, J. (2005), Researching entrepreneurship through phenomenological enquiry, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp 163-191.

Cope (2011), Entrepreneurial learning from failure: an interpretative phenomenological analysis, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 604-623.

Cope, J. and Watts, G. (2000), learning by doing: an exploration of experience, critical incidents and reflection in entrepreneurial learning, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 104-124.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990), Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row.

Daudelin, M.W. (1996), Learning from experience through reflection, Organisational Dynamics, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 36-48.

Davies, H. (2002), A Review of Enterprise and the Economy in Education. HM Treasury.

Dilts, R. (1990), Changing belief systems with NLP. Cupertino: Meta Publications.

Evelein, F.G. and Korthagen. F.A.J. (2015), Practicing Core Reflection. Routledge

Fayolle, A. (2013), Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development: An International Journal, Vol. 25, No. 7-8, pp. 692-701.

Firat, A.F., Shultz, C. and Clifford, J. (1997), From segmentation to fragmentation, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31, No. 3/4, pp. 183-207.

Foucault, M. (1988), Technologies of the Self, ed., by Luther H. Martin, and others. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press.

Gibb, A.A. (1999), Can we build effective entrepreneurship through management development?, Journal of General Management, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 1-21.

Gibson, D., Harkin, A., Scott, J.M. (2009), Towards a pedagogical model of new venture based learning. Paper presented at the efmd Entrepreneurship Conference.

Greene, W.L., Kim, Y.M. and Korthagen F.A.J. (2013), Transforming education from within. In Teaching and Learning from Within A core reflection approach to quality and inspiration in education. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, New York and London.

Guirdham, M. and Tyler, K. (1992), Enterprise Skills for Students. Butterworth Heinemann Ltd, UK.

Hamilton, E. (2005), Situated Learning in Family Business: Narratives from two Generations, Doctoral Thesis, Lancaster University Management School.

Hamilton, E., (2011), Entrepreneurial learning in family business: A situated learning perspective, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 8-26.

Hase, S., and Kenyon, C. (2000), From andragogy to heutagogy, Ultibase, Melbourne.

Herriott, E., Schmidt-Wilk, J. and Heaton, D.P. (2009), Spiritual dimensions of entrepreneurship in Transcendental Meditation and TMSidhi program practitioners, Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 195-208.

Hindle, K. (2007), Formalizing the concept of entrepreneurial capacity, paper presented at the Refereed Proceedings of the 2007 ICSB World Conference, Finland: Turku School of Economics.

Hoekstra, A. (2007), Experienced teachers informal learning in the workplace, Utrecht:IVLOS, Universiteit Utrecht.

Honig B (2004), Contingency model of business planning, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 258-73.

Hytti, U. and OGorman, C. (2004), What is enterprise education? An analysis of the objectives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries, Education + Training, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 11-23.

Intrator, S., and Kunzman, R. (2006), Starting with the soul, Educational Leadership, Vol. 63, No. 6, pp. 38-42.

Jones, C. (2011), Teaching Entrepreneurship to Postgraduates, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Jones, C. and Matlay, H. (2011), Understanding the heterogeneity of entrepreneurship education: going beyond Gartner, Education and Training, Vol. 53, No. 8/9, pp. 692-703.

Jones, C., Matlay , H., Penaluna, K. and Penaluna, A. (2014), Claiming the future of enterprise education,Education + Training, Vol. 56, No. 8/9, pp. 764-77.

Kirby, D.A. (2002), Entrepreneurship Education: Can Business Schools Meet the Challenge, International Council for Small Business 47th World Conference, San Juan, Puerto Rico 16-19 Jun. http://sbaer.uca.edu/Research/2002/ICSB/auth_letter/pdf/079.pdf

Klapper, R. and Neergaard, H. (2012), Five steps to heaven: from student to entrepreneur - an agenda for innovative pedagogy, European Summer University conference paper, Kolding, Denmark, 19.08-25.08.2012.

Klapper R and Refai D (2015), A Gestalt model of entrepreneurial learning. In: Entrepreneurial Learning: The Development of New Perspectives in Research, Education and Practice. London, UK: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-72324-4.

Knowles, M.S. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: from pedagogy to andragogy, Follett Publishing, Chicago, IL..

Korthagen, F.A.J. (2004), In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 77-97.

Korthagen, F. (2008), Quality from within as the key to professional development. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, in New York.

Korthagen, F. (2013), A Focus on the Human Potential. In Korthagen, F.A.J, Kim, Y.M. and Greene, W.L. Teaching and Learning from Within A core reflection approach to quality and inspiration in education. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, New York and London.

Korthagen, F.A.J, Kim, Y.M. and Greene, W.L. (2013), Teaching and Learning from Within A core reflection approach to quality and inspiration in education, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, New York and London.

Lizardo, O. (2004), The Cognitive Origins of Bourdieus Habitus, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, Vol. 34 no. 4, pp. 375-401.

Luckin, R., W. Clark, F. Garnett, A. Whitworth, J. Akass, J. Cook, P. Day, N. Ecclesfield, T. Hamilton and J. Robertson. 2010. Learner generated contexts: A framework to support the effective use of technology to support learning. InWeb 2.0-based e-learning: applying social informatics for tertiary teaching, ed. M.J.W. Lee and C. McLoughlin. PA: IGI Global, 7084.

Manvelder-Longayroux, D.D., Beijaard, D. and Verloop, N. (2007), The portfolio as a tool for stimulating reflection by student teachers, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 23, pp. 47-62

Markwell, J. (2006), Commentary: Science education as mystagogy?, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 324325.

Matlay, H. (2009), Entrepreneurship education in the UK: a critical analysis of stakeholder involvement and expectations, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 355-368.

McAuliffe, M.B.andWinter, A.J.(2013), Distance education and the application of academagogy: a case study,International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change,Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 1-15.

Neergaard, H., Robinson, S., Jones, S. (2014), Identity transformation: Learning entrepreneurship through pedagogical nudging, Paper presented at Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Manchester, UK.

Palmer, P. (1998), The courage to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Parslow, G.R. (2010), Commentary: Heutagogy, the practice of self-learning. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 121.

Pepin, M. (2012), Enterprise education: a Deweyan perspective, Education and Training,Vol. 54, No. 8/9, pp. 801-812

Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2006), Stimulating entrepreneurial leaning: integrating experiential and collaborative approached to learning. NCGE working paper series 2006/1.

Pittaway, L., Cope, J. (2007), Simulating entrepreneurial learning: integrating experiential and collaborative approaches to learning, Management Learning, Vol. 38 No.2, pp. 211-33.

Polanyi, M. (1962), Personal Knowledge, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Rae, D. (2003), Opportunity centred learning: an innovation in enterprise education, Education and Training, Vol. 45 No. 8, pp. 542-549.

Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001), Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp 243-263.

Shotter, J (2006), Understanding Process from Within: An argument for Withness-Thinking, Organization Studies, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 585-604.

Schutz, A. (1967), The Phenomenology of the Social World, Northwestern University Press. Evanston, Illinois.

Sullivan, R. (2000), Entrepreneurial learning and mentoring, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 160-175.

Survey of Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education in Europe (2008), NIRAS Consultants, FORA, ECON Pyry. The European Commission, Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/entrepreneurship/support_measures/training_education/index.htm#survey (accessed 5/6/2009).

Thorpe, R., Cope, J., Ram, M. and Pedler, M. (2009), Leadership development in small- and medium-sized enterprises: The case for action learning, Action Learning: Research and Practice, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 201-208.

Tsoukas, H. and D. Papoulias (1996), Understanding social reforms: A conceptual analysis, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 47, No. 7, pp. 853-863.

Waugh, P. (1998), Postmodernism and feminism, in: Jackson, S. and Jones.J. (eds) Contemporary Feminist Theories, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 17793.

Wagner, N. (2014), A step-by-step guide to Mystagoy, Team RCIA Newsletter, [Online]. Available at: http://teamrcia.com/2007/10/a-step-by-step-guide-to-mystagogy/. Accessed June 2015.

Wenger, E. (2009), A social Theory of Learning in Philips, D.C. and Soltis, J.F. (2009) Perspectives on Learning, Teachers College Press, 209-218.

Zhang, J., Hamilton, E.E. (2010), Entrepreneurship education for owner-managers: The process of trust building for an effective learning community, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 249-270.

Figure 1: The Learning Onion Model

Source: Reproduced from Korthagen (2013), p.32

Figure 2: Learning frameworks in EE in relation to perspectives of philosophical approaches to learning

Figure 3: Allowing learners to evolve through a mystagogical approach to EE

Source: Authors work